Before I get to that, I want to thank the hundreds of HR professionals who packed the room for my “I’ll Help You Become an ADA Accommodation Expert” series at the sold-out 2018 SHRM Employment Law & Legislative Conference in Washington, DC. I had a great time presenting.

Senate Bill 121 (here) would make it unlawful for an employer to enforce any employment contract or settlement agreement against an employee, where the agreement has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to any claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.

So, why would an employer ever agree to settle a discrimination case on such one-sided terms? 🤔

Good question. Or not.

But, then it gets even more perplexing because the proposed bill also states that “[i]f the employee publicly reveals sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable, then the non-disclosure provision shall also be unenforceable against the employer.”

In other words, the two sides can reach an arms-length agreement — maybe one that counsel for both sides negotiates for their respective clients — only to give the employee the right to breach confidentiality at his or her option?!?

Plus, we’re not just talking sexual harassment here.

So, for example, let’s say that an individual alleges that his former employer failed to accommodate his disability. The company views the claim as marginal and would like to resolve it for “nuisance value.” For what it’s worth, the employee is not interested in protracted litigation and agrees to settle the case quickly to put a few bucks in his pocket and avoid the risk of getting nothing later on.

Senate Bill 121 completely chills that.

But wait, there’s more.

Even Senate Bill 121 also states that “a provision in any employment contract that waives any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment shall be deemed against public policy and unenforceable.”

I read that to include arbitration agreements and other agreements to shorten the statute of limitations on discrimination claims.

There’s not much to like about this current version of the bill. However, Senate Bill 121 has made it out of committee.

CONTRIBUTOR:

Eric B. Meyer

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? If you want a nerdy employment-lawyer brain to help you solve HR-compliance issues proactively before the action sequence, as a Partner of a national law firm, FisherBroyles, LLP, I’m here to help. I'm not only an EEOC-approved trainer, I offer day-to-day employment counseling, workplace audits and investigations, and other prophylactic measures to keep your workplace working while you focus on running your business. And for those employers in the midst of conflict, I bring all of my know-how to bear as your zealous advocate. I’m a trial-tested, experienced litigator that has represented companies of all sizes in a veritable alphabet soup of employment law claims, such as the ADA, ADEA, CEPA, FMLA, FLSA, NJLAD, PHRA, Title VII, and USERRA. I also help clients litigate disputes involving restrictive covenants such as non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as well as conflicts over use of trade secrets and other confidential information. For more about me, my practice, and my firm, click on my full bio.